Romain: - advisement = Überlegung, Beratung, Urteilsberatung -

Urteilsberatung would not seem to fit your context at all. To "take something under advisement" means to think the something over, so Überlegung might fit but it does not sound like very good legalease, the Beratung could be from one's attorney, which might also make sense.

Found via www.google.com
Nos. 97SC678 & 96SC678. People v. Blehm; People v. Saint-Veltri.
Criminal Procedure - Right to Testify - Trial Court Advisement - Waiver of Right - Appellate Review of Waiver - Search & Seizure -
Exclusionary Rule - Good Faith Exception.
The Supreme Court modifies the procedure for review of a waiver of the right to testify, holding that such review is best suited for
post-conviction proceedings. Where the trial court advisement of the right to testify did not contain the elements identified in People v. Curtis,
681 P.2d 504 (Colo. 1984), the defendant is entitled to a post-conviction hearing to determine the validity of his waiver. Conversely, where the
advisement was adequate, the record demonstrates that the defendant's waiver was valid, and he is not entitled to a post-conviction hearing.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court reaffirms the Curtis holding that (1) a trial court must advise a defendant of his right to testify and the
consequences of exercising that right, and (2) a waiver of the right must be knowing, voluntary and intelligent. In Blehm, the trial court's
advisement contained all five essential Curtis elements. Thus, the defendant's waiver of the right to testify was effective, and he is not entitled
to either a new trial or an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reverses the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Blehm. In
Saint-Veltri, the trial court's advisement was deficient because it failed to explain the impeachment consequence of testifying. According to the
modified review procedure, the defendant is entitled to a post-conviction hearing. Thus, the Court of Appeals' judgment in Saint-Veltri is
reversed as to this issue, and the case is remanded. The Supreme Court also holds that there is a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule
for clerical errors of court employees. Thus, evidence obtained in a search incident to an unlawful arrest need not be suppressed if the
erroneous arrest was the result of court error and the police were not unreasonable in relying upon that error.